I've worked on this quite a bit for the last decade plus. In field practice on targets while moving back and forth and side to side. There is zero time discrepancy between building either position and getting the gun on target with proper practice.
I neither care to argue about it or change your technique as it is mostly irrelevant for the vast majority of shooters, however in the world of shooting- other than maybe pistol grip and stance; the difference in dynamic shooting performance (speed and hits) between classic offhand and 3-gun techniques is probably the most validated and tested thing that exists.
Whether it is moving shooter and stationary target; stationary shooter and moving target, moving shooter and moving target, stationary shooter and stationary target while being timed (hit factor scoring); running game shooting (European driven game), multi gun/USPSA, static timed drills, etc. there is no version when actually measured and tested in large data sets that a classic offhand technique wins.
Follow up shots are just as quick as well depending on chambering of the rifle (6mm and below generally speaking),
Yeah no. If they are just as quick, it’s because you are rack slow. Just using a semi auto 223 is on average 150% to 175% different at 50 yards on an 8” plate for split times. As the target gets closer the difference in speed for same hits gets much larger.
even with several side steps/forward and back steps, staying in position and target in the scope. We practice this with targets placed 25-150 yards and spread apart roughly 270 degrees (like a Pac-Man shape shooting away from designated setup area) for dynamic movement. It's much different than going from "station to station" like a 3 gun comp
I’m not sure your experience with multi gun, but a shooting multiple targets in an arc while stationary or moving is extremely common.
and simulates a charging or close moving animal who's been wounded.
A person hoping around doesn’t simulate an animal charging or moving. Completely and totally different mechanics and route functions.
The trap shooter stance works great for that even though the vast majority of folks cannot hit 12" targets past 80ish yards on average using that stance.
The vast majority of people can’t hit a 12” plate offhand at 80 yards with any technique. Shot gunners are terrible rifle shooters without retraining- everything about a shotgun (save stance/grip) and skeet/trap/etc is exactly opposite of what is required to hit with a rifle.
Using or looking at shot gunners for a determiner of a rifle or pistol technique differences is a poisoned pool.
They switch to traditional and the hits start coming.
It’s not that they switch, it’s that you give them training (regardless of how little) that didn’t have before.
A first shot hit on a charging animal is way better than a miss with maybe a faster follow up shot and potentially better control. By then you're normally tossing the rifle and pulling sidearm if practiced.
Charging animals are close, yes? The difference between the two techniques in group size with shooters equally skill in both techniques is about 2 MOA. At 25 yards is .5 inch untimed. The moment it is timed, control of the rifle has the largest effect on first shot hit times and split times.
Recoil control can be much better with the trap shooter grip and stance with practice. Most will find that with practice the traditional grip and stance can have recoil controlled very well also.
There is no version where holding the back of the rifle only has more control on the lever than holding both ends.
Maintaining that body/shooting position while moving is very easy and stable with practice. Can be awkward for some at first, but once they switch they rarely go back. My thought process is always, best chance at a first round hit on a close animal, traditional is very successful compared to trap shooter in live drills.
As stated above- in
massive data sets the difference in pure precision between the two techniques is about 2 MOA untimed on average. The moment a shot timer is bright out and targets are used for points, the deference is extremely large in favor of the 3-gun technique.
I don't "love" the popular 3 gun stuff because it doesn't accurately simulate a charging animal/danger close shot. At least in general in our niche hunting application.
I’m unsure what you mean by that? Nothing short of a charging animal or charging target that moves semi erratically simulates a charging animal. The technique that has the higher hit factor from a ready position to hits on target, will have a faster time to hit than one that has a lower hit factor.
Hit rates on moving targets like coyotes, hogs, rabbits, and squirrels all show much higher hit rates with traditional stance over trap shooter stance. This has been field proven over the last 10-12 years with over 300 shooters of all skill levels.
There is no control mechanism with that simple statement. Unless you are measuring and validating the exact same shooters in speed and accuracy on the flat range
in both techniques compared to world class- that is you have a large and deep validated set of metrics for world class 3-gun technique and and large and deep validated set of metrics for world class classical technique
shooting the exact same standards, you do not know what is expected of performance.
I have no idea who your experience base is with it, how they were trained, their real skill level, or anything else; however in the world where 1 point on a target and a hundredth a second means the difference between winning or losing- the difference between the classical grip and stance is a reduction of 20-100% (or more) performance compared to a modern “aggressive” stance and grip.
A simple consistent truism that has proven to be correct repeatedly when it comes to speed and accuracy combined- is nothing that performs “worse” in correctly controlled metrics on a flat range, performs better in real life. A worse performing technique does not (with only a few extreme exceptions) get magically “better” the worse the conditions are and the more stress is placed on the person.
I was planning to get some video showing this position with realistic dynamic movement (not moving from "station to station") but simply shooting at simulated moving targets, good footwork and maintaining targets in the scope. Folks are usually quite surprised and giddy going from military training grips to a position they can actually hit shit with.
The 3-gun is far from military training. Except very recently save for a very small subset of the military. The military until a couple of years ago taught/used the classical offhand or some version of it for any kind of shooting outside “CQB”, if they were taught offhand at all- unless it was close range with a subpar stance and grip there as well.
forgive me sensei.
